national

No rise in cancer seen from Fukushima nuclear disaster: U.N.

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Can you not find a better word than 'spewing' to describe the radiation emissions? How about 'emitting'?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Article states: "so low that we don’t expect to see any increase in cancer in the future in the population.”

The fact that it is not a medical health tracking study, all appearance of validity is lost. No health tracking study would commence until at least five years after an accident followed by years of population follow up in order to assess the emergence of actual cancer development. It takes at least five years from exposure for cancer cases to emerge and as long as 25 years or more for all cancer cases to emerge. Why do you want to declare victory in a race that hasn't even begun, which is indicitive of the nuclear power industry's attempts to minimize any and all radiation releases before actual data is available for assessment.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

Contradicts the WHO report last Feb, which said there will be a small rise in the number of cancers?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

sfjp330JUN. 01, 2013 - 07:12AM JST Article states: "so low that we don’t expect to see any increase in cancer in the future in the population.”

The fact that it is not a medical health tracking study, all appearance of validity is lost. No health tracking study would commence until at least five years after an accident followed by years of population follow up in order to assess the emergence of actual cancer development. It takes at least five years from exposure for cancer cases to emerge and as long as 25 years or more for all cancer cases to emerge. Why do you want to declare victory in a race that hasn't even begun, which is indicitive of the nuclear power industry's attempts to minimize any and all radiation releases before actual data is available for assessment.

Excellent comment. These guys got called in early by TEPCO so that they could literally call it safe...let me guess they will not call them in again....arguing that future cancer out breaks were not from Fukushima "because we had it checked and it was safe!"

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Encouraging news, but the UN report is silent on how long it usually takes before radiation affects human bodies. Besides, "UNSCEAR’s findings appeared to differ somewhat from a World Health Organization (WHO) report published in February which said people in the area worst affected have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers." The WHO report seems to say, "Not yet, but one day they may..."

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Well it's been what, two years? And farmers just started farming rice around Fukushima so...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

" It takes at least five years from exposure for cancer cases to emerge"

Yes, but the article indicates that dosage levels were assessed. If that's true, then it seems reasonable to give some kind of outlook. If exposure was low, things are surely not so bad. I'm not sure what you are expecting from them.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So far comments on this site compiled all of the papers written by the commenters here and are ready to publish in the next mont's Nature it seems as everyone, without probably any physical or chemistry education talks about how wrong the scientists are ;) According to them all we have to do is wait next 50 years for growing cancer numbers around Japan. And yes - radiation affects human bodies in a few minutes as well as 70 years of living...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The title doesn't match the article. Too early to see any cancer. Wiess is good.....

“If that had not been the case, we might have seen the cancer rates rising and other health problems emerging over the next several decades,”

“so low that we don’t expect to see any increase in cancer in the future in the population.”

So he doesn't expect to an increase in cancer but there still may be, since he is basing this on apparent steps that were take to prevent exposure. Still a wait and see game.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well, feel free to keep checking over an extended period, as cancer is not going to manifest itself immediately. 10 - 20 years down the road when for some 'inexplicable reason' people who were kids in 2013 start getting cancer more than any other concentrated rate of people, will it be more Minamoto-like denials?

"That would be in contrast to Chernobyl, the 1986 Soviet reactor explosion which sent radioactive dust across much of Europe and is believed to have caused thyroid cancer in some children."

I also find it interesting they flat-out state there is no rise in cancer but then contrast it with Chernobyl, where it is 'BELIEVED' the disaster caused thyroid cancer in some children.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

http://www.frcsrus.org/home (database of people complaining of health issues post-Fukushima)

Of course nothing happened, those kids around Fukushima never got thyroid cancer ==> can't happen. Workers at the Fukushima plant never got sick.

http://enenews.com/report-now-over-44-of-fukushima-children-tested-have-thyroid-abnormalities

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A study will be very hard to archieve since those people affected lost their lifestyles. they didnt get that much radiation.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Just because something has a fancy title and make lots of proclamations doesn't mean it is a) accurate or b) worth the paper printed on. UNSCEAR is part of the over all IAEA mess and has a long track record of downplaying nuclear problems.

What you want to ask is what data was used and does it realistically reflect the reality. How did they then use that data to make assumptions.

If the data itself was fairly useless or known to be inaccurate that ruins the whole thing. Using iodine scans done weeks after the disaster as someone's total iodine exposure is bogus. Iodine 131 has a 16 day half life. People who were tested were tested far too late. Unless you adjust and attempt to back track to what their exposure at the time was, using that late in the game reading is misleading.

One I saw mentioned in another article about this report cited workers would not see health impacts from their THYROID exposure to i-131 SOON. Never mind most of the workers didn't get the bulk of their exposures by inhaling iodine 131. Even thyroid exposure has some latency so they focus on one thing that turns out the way they want it and ignore the real problem like the number of workers with well over 100 mSv exposures from their work. Saying they will all have no problems at all would be foolish, inaccurate and that is why UNSCEAR avoids saying anything about it and focuses on something that was mostly irrelevant.

This is all a PR game for the nuke industry who wants everyone to forget what happened. They have a rug to sweep this all under and you pesky people are getting in the way of their nuke Renaissance

5 ( +6 / -1 )

lol.. the UN never did their own study, they just took the reports made by Japanese government and used the material for their homework and called it the "UN report".

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B68f83tqq7QuZUdCZXhTLVl2dEE/edit

38,114 children in the Fukushima thyroid study.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=28599 US WestCoast + Hawaii thyroid study.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is good news for the people near Fukushima. Hopefully we can start to get over the false cancer scare now.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Interesting.

http://www.nks.org/download/FUKUSHIMA_SEMINAR/presentations/weiss.pdf

Slide 18. "no child was exposed to more than 100mSV". Total Fukushima 26. Chernobyl, well over 1000.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Now there's a good news! Let's all hope for the best!

-1 ( +1 / -1 )

Isnt it a little early to be making that kind of call?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

hmm UNSCEAR eh?

They said in these meetings that the normal dose in Japan and mostly world wide was 2mSv/y.. but they are basing these figures on statistics as opposed to real findings.. here are peer reviewed articles showing that instead of 55 percent Radon as being normal it is indeed a staggering 5 percent... so UNSCEAR has doubled the normal background.. and i havent broke down the dubious other percentages making up the year dose of Background radiation. :: Weiss, who chairs work on UNSCEAR’s Fukushima report, told reporters that dose levels were “so low that we don’t expect to see any increase in cancer in the future in the population.” on the comments on that link are the links to the peer reviewed documentation and a fiesty argument concerningRadon dose..

http://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/31/icrp-who-and-unscear-and-their-effect-on-the-fukushima-children/

i was blocked from giving the peer reviewed evidence on Japan times, so i post htis as a taster

please feel free to prove this posit wrong

Extract "...The review by Wrixon et al (1988) considered concentrations of radon and its decay products in the UK outdoor air. Several authors have presented data which indicate that the mean outdoor radon concentration in the UK is about 4 Bq m–3. This is lower than that in many other countries. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation quotes a world average of 10 Bq m-3 but with a wide range from 1–100 Bq m–3 (UNSCEAR, 2000)...."

i get 10 bequerels m-3 in london, the same as most populated places in the UK.. so UNSCEAR are using 200bq/m3 to work the dose out for the children of fukushima claiming it is Normal levels..

i hope for the childrens sake that UNSCEAR are right, but its not looking good.. peace

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hmm. Japanese media has already reported a couple of cases of thyroid cancer in Fukushima children since the two Fukushima nuclear plant explosions, that this represents a statistically significant spike in incidence, and that further monitor and analysis is needed to determine whether or not this spike is related to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. This article mentions none of this. Is it because the "experts" who wrote the UNSCEAR study MISSED this information, OMITTED it, or ADDRESSED and DISMISSED it on scientific grounds? These questions would lead to a much more interesting and informative article.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think we will see a rise in cancer, but not from genetic damage caused by radiation. Instead it will be caused by the stress caused to people living there. Stress can change expressed genes and hurt your immune system. We all have abnormal cancerous cells in our body all the time, but it is our immune system that destroys them under normal circumstances.

In conclusion, all the negative reporting by the media and anti-nuke groups will kill more people than the radiation. Pretty sad.

-3 ( +4 / -6 )

This is wrong on so many levels. The title is missing a few words, since it is only a study of the immediate effects of one source of radiation, short half-life radioactive iodine, in children, based on Japanese government provided statistics.

The title should read: No immediate rise in thyroid cancer in children seen yet from Fukushima nuclear disaster.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

months @Nancy

UNSCEAR is part of the over all IAEA mess and has a long track record of downplaying nuclear problems.

Is your way of saying that UNSCEAR/IAEA have been long trying to reveal the genuine health effects of radiation on humans. Alarmists tried to convince the world that there would be deformed babies and mutants walking the streets in Japan 9 months after the major leakage of radiation from Fukushima. It was a catastrophic event with the pollution effects lasting decades and beyond, and I'm sure that people will get sick based on severe dosage/exposure. However the constant slamming of every report really does no more than to prolong fear and uncertainty, when the people living there need more science and reassurance of what REAL danger exists.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

From the WHO report last Feb

Girls who were exposed as infants to the highest doses face the greatest lifetime risks. Their chance of developing breast cancer rises by about 6 per cent and, most strikingly, the risk of thyroid cancer may rise by up to 70 per cent. The normally expected risk of female thyroid cancer over a lifetime is 0.75 per cent; that becomes 1.25 per cent for girls in the most affected Fukushima locations.

Maria Neira, WHO director for public health and environment, stated: “The WHO report underlines the need for long-term health monitoring of those who are at high risk, along with the provision of necessary medical follow-up and support services. This will remain an important element in the public health response to the disaster for decades.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7cba749c-819d-11e2-904c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2UvFI6nqm

The people from Namie and Iitate weren't evacuated for about four months?

4 ( +5 / -2 )

Expecting to see an imediate rise in cancer from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is about as realistic as expecting to see natural erosion to create a canyon out of solid rock in the same time period.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

upgrayedd: This is good news for the people near Fukushima. Hopefully we can start to get over the false cancer scare now.

Apparently some already have or didn't you read the article about the farmers planting rice again 15 km from the crippled reactors? I've always thought rose-colored glasses were the prettiest ones too.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/farmers-resume-planting-rice-near-crippled-fukushima-site

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The money that has been raised should be used to permanently evacuate the area and have people actually live, work and grow food in an area that does not pose health risks. There is no way one can foresee how this disaster will affect future generations and it is foolhardy to be making premature claims that seem to suggest there are no risks.

3 ( +3 / -1 )

Doesn't matter anymore!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"No rise in cancer seen from Fukushima nuclear disaster: U.N." and nobody will. The rise in cases will be in the second generation just as it is now for the Hiroshima situation. There probably are not trusted government statistics for the present generation, but just ask a few 65+ year old how many people in the family have some form of cancer. Check back 65 years from now.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Rather too early to pop the champagne!! Why the panic to reassure the public? do they want to restart the remaining expired n faulty nuke plants? N how scientific and authentic are these studies? For instance are they endorsed by WHO?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Rather too early to pop the champagne!! Why the panic to reassure the public? do they want to restart the remaining expired n faulty nuke plants? N how scientific and authentic are these studies? For instance are they endorsed by WHO?

Rick. Agree on not the popping the champagne. We shouldn't be celebrating anything about this incident, ever. However, I think the public should be exposed to more science that gives them realistic data of what has happened, and how it is likely to affect them. You said "N how scientific and authentic are these studies?", but equally, I would ask how scientific are the Cold War studies that projected a terrifyingly painful death when The Bomb goes off. This is how people have come to fear all things Nuclear, and it is way OTT. What happened in Fukushima should never have happened. Careless, negligent, I can't describe the stupidity. But, rather than trying to assume that everyone will die if exposed to ANY radiation, how about giving the folks in the region some truth, which hopefully will lead to some hope, which will finally lead to some positive mentality in wanting to move on with life as opposed to just worrying about the present.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think since the end of last year, TEPCO stopped giving free health care to its workers including those at the Fukushima plant. They are not really monitoring the work force for internal levels of radiation, even though there are still many places around the plant measuring very high levels of radiation. The temporary workers are very much left to their own devices which means zero and we can't even be sure that the daily doses they are exposed to are accurately being added up.

There are still many areas where people remain exposed to high levels of radiation. In Futaba, next to the plant, the gov't's recently did a re-zoning stating 3% of Futaba could be decontaminated but the other 97% will be off limits for many many decades.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hmmm .... who knew there were so many doctors on JT. And experts on radiation as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The article is short on details. How many people were interviewed? How many people did they measure for internal radiation? Were they able to access the medical records of the Fukushima people measured for internal radiation. Did they study the various radiation dispersion charts? Which radiation figures did they use, American or Japanese? Did they make any radiation reading around Fukushima? More questions than answers. I guess in the end, we'll all have to wait until the full report is published.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@David McIntoshJun

Hmm. Japanese media has already reported a couple of cases of thyroid cancer in Fukushima children since the two Fukushima nuclear plant explosions, that this represents a statistically significant spike in incidence,

Except the rate of thyroid cancer in Japan is about 4.2 cases per 100,000 people per year. So a couple of cases in two years with 160,000 evacuees is actually fewer cases than expected.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@mike "...Of the 360,000, around 38,000 were checked in fiscal 2011, and 10, including the three thyroid cancer cases, are believed to be suffering some form of cancer. The average age of the 10 is around 15, and seven are female.

The remaining seven are undergoing medical examinations at the university....."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/14/national/fukushima-disaster-panel-so-far-reports-three-young-people-have-thyroid-cancer/#.UaqKZddx0xA

1 ( +1 / -0 )

time will tell

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Sean Mcgee

I can't make head or tail of your post. Or the link. Rather than trying to prove you wrong, how about trying to prove you are right, and perhaps stating what you want others to disprove might be helpful.

Radon is very location specific. London having some of the lowest levels in the country. If it scares you, don't move to Northampton or Cornwall. Actually, in some parts of Cornwall you have to have a survey done to quantify the levels because they are quite high, but more important, quite consistently high. Map here if you want to take a look. Notice England would have appeared to drawn the borders with Wales using this map!!

http://www.ukradon.org/map.php?map=englandwales

Cornwall is especially beautiful, and despite the high levels, large numbers of tourists flock there for their holidays (despite Radon gas known to be radioactive and present in the region). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/hong-kong-radiation-exceeds-tokyo-even-after-japan-crisis.html

Also MOX reprocessing is not done near London - but yes it is a heavily polluted city.

Hopefully you would be happy in Paris? Which surprised me as being very low, despite being a very active nuclear country. http://www.ifs.tohoku.ac.jp/edge/radiation/Amount%20of%20radiation%20around%20the%20world%20sep%2008,2011%20EN.pdf Slide 1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mike O'Brien "Except the rate of thyroid cancer in Japan is about 4.2 cases per 100,000 people per year. So a couple of cases in two years with 160,000 evacuees is actually fewer cases than expected."

4.2 per 100,000 sounds about right for the population as a whole, averaged across age groups. But among children the incidence of thyroid cancer is much lower than this averaged figure. This is why just 2 cases among Fukushima children represents a statistically significant spike.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

An ongoing study on the impact of radiation on Fukushima residents from the crippled atomic power plant has found 12 minors with confirmed thyroid cancer diagnoses, up from three in a report in February, with 15 other suspected cases, up from seven, researchers announced Wednesday.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites